- Case
- CHAYYA NARAYANBUA GOSAVI v. SUDHIR RAMNATH CHORMALE (Bombay High Court, 07-01-2025)
- Law
- Maharashtra Public Trusts Act.
Facts: The petitioner, son of the original Inamdar, challenged the registration of a public trust concerning inam property Gut No. 1 in Changatpuri. The respondent had applied for registration of Shri Vithal Rukhmini Mandir Tirth Khamb as a public trust, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner (ACC) granted the registration in 2012. The petitioner claimed the property was inam land and that he was not given notice of the proceedings. The Joint Charity Commissioner (JCC) dismissed the petitioner's revision application, citing delay and questioning the title.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the JCC's order, which upheld the ACC's decision to register the trust. The petitioner argued that the ACC failed to follow proper procedure under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, specifically regarding notice to interested parties and conducting a proper inquiry.
Issue: Did the ACC err in granting the trust registration without proper notice to interested parties (specifically the Inamdar or his heirs) and without conducting a sufficient inquiry as mandated by Section 19 and Rule 7A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950? Was the JCC's dismissal of the revision application justified?
Holding: Yes, the High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of both the JCC and the ACC.
Reasoning: The Court found that the ACC failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 19 and Rule 7A of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which require notice to interested parties and a thorough inquiry before granting trust registration. The ACC's acceptance of the respondent's contentions based solely on an affidavit, overlooking revenue records indicating the petitioner's rights, was deemed improper. The court emphasized that the purpose of notice is to enable the ACC to determine if the property belongs to the trust and to ensure that third-party property is not wrongly classified as trust property. The JCC erred in dismissing the revision application, as the delay was excusable given the lack of notice to the petitioner. The court clarified that while the authorities under the Act cannot decide the issue of title, they must satisfy themselves that the property claimed by the trust actually belongs to it.
